Neither I nor Ritter are lawyers specializing in international law. The UN Charter contains an inherent contradiction highlighted by Lavrov a few months ago. Firstly, the charter stands for territorial integrity. It also declares a right for an oppressed minority to achieve their own political autonomy. This requires carving out a new nation from existing national territory, which violates "territorial integrity".
Different power blocks advocate for whichever element of the charter achieves their geopolitical ends. Take Kosovo/Serbia (ie. Yugoslavia) [NATO yes] and then Catalonia/Spain [NATO no] as recent cases.
The situation of the Russian assistance to the DPR+LPR and invasion of Ukraine is more complex. The assistance to DPR+LPR is legitimate under Article 51. The invasion of Kherson and Zaparozhia, and then Kharkiv is different. The conquering of parts of these other oblasts facilitate the support of the DPR+LPR but are themselves direct territorial invasions. The invasions are what I am referring to in the "illegal" part of the article. The support of DPR+LPR is legitimate, to my analysis, based on article 51, but not the others.
I am partial to the position proposed by Ritter. However, I must read the charter and apply it within the scope of actions as best I can. Hence, my declaration of "illegal". DPR+LPR, okay; the rest, no.
Thank you for your detailed comment. I repeat, I am not a lawyer.
Kiwi Veritas,
Neither I nor Ritter are lawyers specializing in international law. The UN Charter contains an inherent contradiction highlighted by Lavrov a few months ago. Firstly, the charter stands for territorial integrity. It also declares a right for an oppressed minority to achieve their own political autonomy. This requires carving out a new nation from existing national territory, which violates "territorial integrity".
Different power blocks advocate for whichever element of the charter achieves their geopolitical ends. Take Kosovo/Serbia (ie. Yugoslavia) [NATO yes] and then Catalonia/Spain [NATO no] as recent cases.
The situation of the Russian assistance to the DPR+LPR and invasion of Ukraine is more complex. The assistance to DPR+LPR is legitimate under Article 51. The invasion of Kherson and Zaparozhia, and then Kharkiv is different. The conquering of parts of these other oblasts facilitate the support of the DPR+LPR but are themselves direct territorial invasions. The invasions are what I am referring to in the "illegal" part of the article. The support of DPR+LPR is legitimate, to my analysis, based on article 51, but not the others.
I am partial to the position proposed by Ritter. However, I must read the charter and apply it within the scope of actions as best I can. Hence, my declaration of "illegal". DPR+LPR, okay; the rest, no.
Thank you for your detailed comment. I repeat, I am not a lawyer.